Spatial Context or Memory? Sizing the Inputs of Neural Surrogates for Partially Observed Fields
Organizations: University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Abstract
Neural surrogates that forecast a physical field from sparse, noisy sensors read a window of nearby sensors and a history of past snapshots. Practitioners choose both by comparing fitted models with each other. Such comparisons cannot tell a model's shortfall from missing information. We measure the trade-off between window and history against the Bayes-optimal error of the same readings. An exact Gaussian analysis shows that noisy or sparse observation of a field with local dynamics makes the optimal forecast read distant sensors only through spatial correlation. On a forced linear field with a known optimum, trained models that read only the window come within 1% of it. We then train such models on viscous Burgers flow and the chaotic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (KS) equation, with every deciding comparison fixed before any test evaluation. In every field except KS, eight snapshots remove a smaller fraction of the one-snapshot error as the lead time, the number of steps to the forecast target, grows. In KS, for windows up to one correlation length, they remove a larger fraction. This lead-time inversion persists across sensor densities, three architectures and a two-dimensional domain. It shrinks as damping lowers the Lyapunov exponent. Damping also removes the linear instability of KS. We therefore tie the inversion to instability and leave chaos and linear amplification unseparated. For surrogate design the results give two rules. Size the window in correlation lengths of the field. Split a fixed input budget between window and history for the lead time the model will serve, because the best split moves toward wider windows as the lead time grows. In Burgers flow the split chosen at lead time one ends with 13.5 times the best error at lead time eight.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Update | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| diffusive | 1 | |||||
| 2 | ||||||
| 4 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| advective | 1 | |||||
| 2 |
| Forced linear field | Burgers flow | Kuramoto-Sivashinsky | |
| Equation | |||
| Domain length, grid points | , | , | , |
| Parameters | , , | none | |
| Forcing | white in time, 32 modes | none, decaying | none, chaotic attractor |
| Time step, observation interval | exact, | , | , |
| Initial condition | stationary law | smooth random, no burn in | burn in of time units |
| Lyapunov exponent | Peak linear rate | (grid points) | Growth over 8 steps | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( ) | ||||
| ( ) | ||||
| ( ) | ||||
| ( ) |
| Experiment | Comparison | Predicted | Test value | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KS, 64 and 32 sensors | 64 sensors, | as predicted | ||
| 64 sensors, | as predicted | |||
| 32 sensors, | as predicted | |||
| 32 sensors, | as predicted | |||
| one-sensor closed fraction at | as predicted | |||
| lead-time difference at | not as predicted |
| System and model | Window | , | Difference [99.17%] | Outcome | , |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KS, 256 sensors, CNN | 0.25 CL, 3 sensors | falls | |||
| KS, 256 sensors, CNN | 1 CL, 9 sensors | falls | |||
| KS, 64 sensors, GRU | 1 CL, 2 to 3 sensors | falls | |||
| KS, 64 sensors, MLP | 1 CL, 2 to 3 sensors | falls | |||
| Burgers, 8 sensors, CNN | 0.45 CL, 1 sensor | rises | |||
| Burgers, 8 sensors, CNN | 0.89 CL, 2 to 3 sensors | rises |
| System | Window | [99.17%] | , one seed left out | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KS, 64 sensors, CNN | 1 CL | 0.488 | 0.311 | 3.45 | 17.9 | ||
| 2 CL | 0.272 | 0.449 | 1.48 | 4.12 | |||
| 4 CL | 0.158 | 0.355 | 1.56 | 1.66 | |||
| full ring | 0.341 | 0.510 | 1.35 | 1.61 | |||
| KS, 256 sensors, CNN | 0.25 CL | 0.412 | 0.137 | 0.825 | 28.2 | ||
| 0.5 CL | 0.354 | 0.166 | 0.748 | 14 |
| Array | Window | lead time 1 | lead time 8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KS, 64 sensors | 0.5 CL | ||
| 1 CL | |||
| 2 CL | |||
| 4 CL | |||
| 8 CL | |||
| KS, 32 sensors | 1 CL |
| KS, 64 sensors | 0.5 CL | 1 CL | 2 CL | 4 CL | 8 CL | 5% | 10% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30.39 | 3.01 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.15 | none | none | |
| 2 | 56.73 | 5.15 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.13 | none | none | |
| 4 | 94.49 | 8.22 | 0.32 | -0.00 | 0.55 | 4 CL | 4 CL | |
| 8 | 141.01 | 10.15 | 0.88 | -0.01 | 0.34 | 4 CL | 4 CL | |
| Burgers, 64 sensors | 0.057 CL | 0.11 CL | 0.23 CL | 0.45 CL | 0.89 CL | 5% | 10% | |
| 1 | 6.72 | 1.40 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.73 | none | none |
Neural Surrogate Modeling
Neural surrogate modeling uses learned models to approximate costly simulations, enabling faster prediction, design, control, and inference.
See all 412 papers